Re: [HumJanenge] CIC not practising what it preaches

Newspaper reporters don't know anything and publish rubbish to fill their columns.

The SC case is clearly distinguishable, hinging as it did on whether the office of the CJI is a public authority distinct from the SC, whether the CJI is required to disclose information submitted to him in confidence, whether there is any legal requirement (versus voluntary requirement) for asset returns to be submitted in the first place et al..

In the present instance, it is a clear case of 8(1)(j) which has 2 components - "personal information" or "invasion of privacy" EITHER of which is adequate to deny information.
Asset returns cans be voluntarily disclosed, but the RTI Act has no teeth to extract it on behalf of the citizens.

Finally let us see the operative part of this news report
""This order of the CIC is completely contradictory to what it ruled in January last year, when it asked Supreme Court to provide information under RTI on whether judges declare their assets to their chief justices," Durve said."

Where is the contradiction ? We all know that SC judges do declare their assets, and we knew it without RTI.

Sarbajit

On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Dr. J. K. Grover <jkg_9@hotmail.com> wrote:

http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/PUBLICATIONS/HT/HD/2011/01/01/INDEX.SHTML

CIC not practising what it preaches

Nagendar Sharma nagendar.sharma@hindustantimes.com, NEWDELHI
TheCentralInformation Commission (CIC) has in a controversial decision ruled against making public the wealth details of its former top officials as well as of former bosses of the Election Commission.

The transparency watchdog has delivered many landmark verdicts, including one that led to the declaration of assets by judges of the Supreme Court and high courts last year.

But in its decision on an appeal filed by Pune-based right to information (RTI) activist Vihar Durve, who sought property details of former chief information commissioners Wajahat Habibullah and AN Tiwari and of former chief election commissioners N Gopalswami and Navin Chawla, the commission ruled in favour of secrecy.

"Property returns of the f officers s are subs mitted . to the cadre authoritie every yea dence and disclosure of information contained would definitely be unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual," information commissioner Deepak Sandhu said in the order.
"If the applicant had any specific information with regard to any acts of corruption or disproportionate wealth in respect of any civil servant, he should pass it on to the designated organisations responsible for investigating such matters," the commission ruled.

Criticising Durve, it said: "The role of investigating agencies can't be assumed by any citizen along with the right to have access to personal information of third parties..."

"This order of the CIC is completely contradictory to what it ruled in January last year, when it asked Supreme Court to provide information under RTI on whether judges declare their assets to their chief justices," Durve said.

He approached the CIC after he was denied the information by the department of personnel and training (DoPT) last year.

"The information sought by you is personal and exempt from disclosure under section 8 of the RTI Act," the DoPT had written to Durve. Till now, only one information commissioner, Shailesh Gandhi, has declared his assets voluntarily.
Dr J K Grover